↓ Skip to main content

Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010359.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Hartley, Angelique Mavrodaris, Nadine Flowers, Edzard Ernst, Karen Rees

Abstract

A major determinant in cardiovascular disease (CVD) is stress. As transcendental meditation (TM) is thought to help in lowering negative stress indicators, it may be a beneficial strategy for the primary prevention of CVD. To determine the effectiveness of TM for the primary prevention of CVD. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 10); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to week three November 2013); EMBASE Classic and EMBASE (Ovid) (1947 to week 48 2013); ISI Web of Science (1970 to 28 November 2013); and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database (November 2013). We also searched the Allied and complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (inception to January 2014) and IndMed (inception to January 2014). We handsearched trial registers and reference lists of reviews and articles and contacted experts in the field. We applied no language restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least three months' duration involving healthy adults or adults at high risk of CVD. Trials examined TM only and the comparison group was no intervention or minimal intervention. We excluded trials that involved multi-factorial interventions. Outcomes of interest were clinical CVD events (cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality and non-fatal events) and major CVD risk factors (e.g. blood pressure and blood lipids, occurrence of type 2 diabetes, quality of life, adverse events and costs). Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We identified four trials (four papers) (430 participants) for inclusion in this review. We identified no ongoing studies. The included trials were small, short term (three months) and at risk of bias. In all studies, TM was practised for 15 to 20 minutes twice a day.None of the included studies reported all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or non-fatal endpoints as trials were short term, but one study reported survival rate three years after the trial was completed. In view of the considerable statistical heterogeneity between the results of the studies for the only outcomes reported, systolic blood pressure (I(2) = 72%) and diastolic blood pressure (I(2) = 66%), we decided not to undertake a meta-analysis. None of the four trials reported blood lipids, occurrence of type 2 diabetes, adverse events, costs or quality of life. Currently, there are few trials with limited outcomes examining the effectiveness of TM for the primary prevention of CVD. Due to the limited evidence to date, we could draw no conclusions as to the effectiveness of TM for the primary prevention of CVD. There was considerable heterogeneity between trials and the included studies were small, short term and at overall serious risk of bias. More and larger long-term, high-quality trials are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 27%
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 18%
Unspecified 2 18%
Other 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 27%
Psychology 2 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 9%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,818,349
of 12,974,906 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,907
of 10,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,339
of 262,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#176
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,974,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.